| Louise
Meyer: Welcome Everyone! My name is Louise
Meyer. I am a Senior Project Associate with the Council
of Chief State School Officers, one of six partners that
form the National Transition Alliance. Each month, NTA conducts an audio
conference on a topic of interest to professionals and
organizations as part of our technical assistance
component. This month's presentation is entitled Learning
Technology Systems: Promoting Success for All Students.
Our first speaker for today's
call is Ms. Barbara Reeves, who currently serves as the
Director of Instructional Technology at the Maryland
State Department of Education. She provides leadership
and coordination for the implementation of Maryland's
long-range State Technology Plan. As part of that
implementation, her Instructional Technology Unit
administers the State and Federal programs that provide
funding for technology in local schools and school
Districts. Previously, she coordinated several technology
projects for the state education department and was a
high school teacher in Baltimore County for 15 years.
Our second presenter is Ms. Joy
Inness, who currently serves as a Program Facilitator for
the John Hopkins University's Center for Technology in
Education. She trains teachers to use technology to
improve learner outcomes for a diverse student population
using training institutes, workshops, and on-line
resources. Previously, Ms. Inness worked as a teacher in
the Baltimore City School System while also serving as a
school facilitator in a technology program that trains
teachers how to integrate technology with SCANS
competencies.
Finally, our third presenter is
Dr. Ann Thompson. She currently serves as the Chair for
the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Iowa
State University. Her department received the AACTE Award
in 2000 for Best Practice in Technology Teacher
Education. She also serves as President of the Society of
Information Technology in Teacher Education, Editor for
the Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, and is the
author of numerous books and journal articles on
technology in teacher education.
We welcome our speakers today.
We will start our presentation with Ms. Reeves followed
by Ms. Inniss and then Dr. Thompson. Barbara, would you
like to start?
Barbara Reeves:
Thank you, Louise. I have to say that this is quite
incredible to be doing a presentation knowing that there
are people from all over the country on the line. There
are probably folks on the line now from more states than
just New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Idaho.
What I wanted to talk about
today was our state technology plan and how, embedded in
that plan, is not only the commitment to provide access
to technology for all learners but also some very
specific strategies to address the needs of a very
diverse student population. The vision for the plan
— and most states have a technology plan and a
vision, but in ours, the theme is resounded — is
that every learner in our state, by the year 2003, will
not only have access to but the use of technology in
classrooms and schools. We also envision that the
technology is going to support their achievement,
enabling all of them to be independent, competent, and
creative thinkers as well as effective communicators and
problem solvers. This probably sounds like a typical
vision statement, but, as we have written out strategies
and various activities, we have really tried to make sure
that we were living up to that philosophy.
One of the strategies that I
want to focus on is that we want to make sure that the
technology is used first as a tool that accommodates
diverse learning needs in all students. A second part of
that strand is that we want to ensure that diverse
learning needs are taken into consideration when
technology is integrated into the classroom. This is a
good philosophy and strategy, and I want to go over three
particular actions or activities that are in place to
help make that happen at the classroom level.
The first one is probably the
most direct, and it's what we all call developing a
“habit of mind” in teachers — that
considering diverse learning styles and diverse learning
needs becomes part of their professional development and
thinking as they learn to integrate technology
effectively. Each year, our department sponsors the
Maryland Technology Academy Summer Institute. It is done
in partnership with Johns Hopkins University and Towson
University. The emphasis in the curriculum at that
three-week summer institute and the follow-up sessions is
less on teaching teachers how to use the
technology and more on learning good teaching and
classroom management strategies using technology.
One of the required strands for
all of the Technology Academy Fellows is on
differentiating instruction. It is based heavily on the
work of Carol Ann Tomlinson at the University of
Virginia.One of the things that the Technology Academy
Fellows learn is how to use technology and particular
types of software to accommodate various learning styles
and learning levels. In addition, they learn how students
can be given choices and options in their
technology-based projects and products. Instead of having
everyone work on the same project or product, there can
be a lot of flexibility based on the needs of their
learners.
They learn how to manage the use
of technology in the context of flexible grouping and
pacing of activities and also how to use technology to
extend and accelerate lessons for students who actually
are progressing at a faster pace. We tend to think of
diverse learning needs as applying to those who may be
behind, but there are those students who are well ahead
of others. Technology can be used to help give those
students an outlet for additional work very productively.
The summer institute also has a
strand on using assistive technology, and that strand is
a very popular one because it is a long learning curve
for many teachers who are teaching in inclusive
classrooms, and — I will say this because I was a
secondary teacher — it is especially true for high
school teachers who really are less accustomed to having
to make accommodations in their classroom than elementary
teachers.
Another strategy, other than
that of professional development, is that we do have some
information dissemination. In Maryland, as I am sure
throughout the United States, working toward an inclusive
educational environment has been a major focus in our
public school systems for several years now. This again
has presented a challenge for the general education
teachers. One very important area of learning is how
technology could and should be used to support those
students that they have in their classrooms who have a
variety of learning disabilities, and not just the severe
disabilities, but those that might be termed mild.
One of the really nice pieces of
information was done in partnership with Hopkins Center
for Technology in Education, of which Joy is a part. It
developed a monograph that is called “Together For
Good in Maryland: Planning and Integrating Technology
Accommodations In Schools.” I just wanted to give
you an example from the first chapter that says:
“What is assistive technology and how can it
help?”
Just to paraphrase what is in
that chapter: Assistive technology is not necessarily
limited to high tech devices and augmentative
communication devices and switches; it is broader than
that. Some of the examples they give are really nice in
that technology can include a whole wide range of
technology and software that could accommodate, again,
not only the severely disabled but those that might be
termed mildly disabled. For example, students having
difficulty with handwriting could use word processors and
even computers with arm supports to improve accuracy.
They also suggest how important
motivation is for students with learning disabilities and
how the World Wide Web has helped them in conducting
their research and giving them some authentic tasks using
that kind of research strategy. Producing multi-media
products can also help with motivation.
The monograph is a really nice
one. It is geared not as much towards the special
education teacher again but for those many, many general
education teachers in Maryland who have these questions
and really need to know how the technology can make their
jobs easier for them. This is not just for those students
who have been labeled special education, but also for
many of the students who might need accommodations.
Johns Hopkins is working on a
web site as well. This is a second area that is being
used to try to get to our teachers through information
about technology as a tool.
I think the third important area
in our state plan is providing some accountability to
make sure this is happening. How do we know that all of
our students have access to technology? We have a lot of
different data collections that we do. We now have an
online web site that shows down to the school level what
the level of access is for computers and Internet access.
It also includes a question on assistive technology to
ensure that there is a clear process in place in the
school and that teachers use it as they need to. That
accountability system is very important in making sure
that, even as we track it, teachers know that it is an
important enough area for us to make it visible on our
state inventory and that we publish those numbers and
have various reports.
From the state level, it is more
difficult to really impact the classroom, especially the
things that are happening in any individual schools.
However, we are sending a message with our state plan.
Even in some of the activities that are state sponsored,
we are making sure that we are developing teachers'
knowledge and skills.
Louise Meyer:
Thank you, Barbara. Our next presenter is Joy Inniss.
Joy, if you would go ahead and show us a little more
detail on what Maryland is doing at the school level with
learning technology.
Joy Inniss: Today
I will be talking about what is being done in Baltimore
City High Schools. Our aim is to change the way teachers
teach the curriculum. Ultimately, we want students to
have the skills they need to solve problems and think
about issues; especially regarding issues that they will
face in their careers. Students will acquire the same
academic content knowledge that they would in a regular
classroom, but will also have the opportunity to use
technology as it becomes infused in the content of
classroom lessons.
The strategy we use to do this
is called TeamTech; a project-based approach that
incorporates the use of technology in the classroom. This
is where SCANS skills are very important. The strategy
aims to assist teachers in managing their classrooms
while providing a structured framework for the creation
of project-based learning units that incorporate
technology. We want to see all students succeed
especially those that are placed at risk by economic
conditions, community or family disorganization, or
disabilities. In other words, a major focus of the
program is to create a classroom that encourages students
to become self-regulated learners.
As I mentioned earlier, one of
the methods we use to accomplish this is through the use
of the TeamTech Learning System (created by Johns Hopkins
Center for Technology in Education). TeamTech provides
teachers with a structured approach to using many
cooperative, project-based teaching and learning
strategies. In class, students are placed in
heterogeneous groups where each student has a particular
role. The roles include facilitator, supply manager,
coach, data manager and recorder. Designed to model
positions that students would encounter in a workplace
setting, these roles allow the teachers to organize
lessons in a cooperative way so that students become
exposed to work-related responsibilities. In addition,
the use of a simulated experience where students use
CD-ROMS or different software applications to enhance the
skills that they are learning in the classroom is a
benefit of our program. Together we work not only with
students, but also with teachers and administrators.
Teaming is a very important part of our work.
When students are placed in
cooperative learning groups, for example, they are able
to work with and learn from their peers. In this way they
encourage each other to be successful and to meet the
content needs and classroom expectations. We find that
because of the TeamTech Learning System's structured
approach, there is much more opportunity for students and
teachers to learn from each other — not to mention
the opportunities that the system provides the teacher
for well-designed classroom management.
Another important component of
this program is to provide staff development for teachers
about the uses of technology. We believe that it is
important for our teachers to be comfortable working with
technology. Unfortunately in many cases, we find that the
teachers are not as comfortable using technology as they
would like to be. So, before we even go in to work with
the students, we want to make sure that we provide the
training up front for the teachers.
In summary, we aspire to make
students self-regulated learners and facilitate this
endeavor through the use of structured, cooperative
classrooms. Students have consistent roles similar to
those found in the workplace. In practice this means that
students are encouraged to help each other and take
responsibility for their learning.
Assessment is another important
part of our system. For example, we help teachers to
understand how to create and use rubrics relevant to
project-based learning and the SCANS skills. Typically we
find it most helpful if we assist teachers in creating
rubrics for units that they are currently teaching. In
this way they are able to relate to and use the final
products of our training. Essentially we are going in
with the intention of demonstrating to teachers how to
integrate their particular curriculum with technology and
to show the teachers how they can engage and assess
students with a project-based learning system.
The success of this model has
been enormous! We have a good deal of research from both
Baltimore City and other schools in the county that
indicate that students in TeamTech classes show academic
gains including increases in time on task, attendance and
decreases in tardiness. They come to school, they want to
learn, and they are interested because they want to be on
the computer in a structured environment where roles and
expectations are clear.
Louise Meyer:
Thank you very much. Dr. Thompson?
Ann Thompson:
Thanks, Louise. I am pleased to be here. I will have a
little different perspective on the issue. I am going to
be coming at this from the point of view of work with
pre-service teachers in the area of using technology. I
would like to give you a sense of how we are thinking
about that issue and then also give a relatively specific
and brief description of what we are doing in our teacher
education program at Iowa State.
I think that I do not have to
spend much time in terms of the rationale for the
importance of technology in pre-service teacher
education. We are all very well aware of the need for
teachers who are carefully educated, not just in how to
use the technology, but who have experiences using the
technology in ways that truly improve student learning. I
know all of us are involved with in-service teacher
education; and, in fact, I have spent a good deal of my
career working with in-service teachers in the area of
technology. It was in l99l that I had the hard experience
that taught me that, although I was working a lot in K-12
schools and really enjoying that work, what I really
needed to be doing in terms of maximum impact was working
with our faculty here at Iowa State University in the
College of Education so that they could be using
technology in compelling and meaningful kinds of ways in
teacher education. It turned out that it was a lot harder
than working with the K-12 teachers, and I am going to
tell you a little bit of that story.
In terms of our rationale, we
are very interested in preparing new teachers with both
the capability and vision of using technology. We are
also quite committed to the idea that technology properly
used in a teacher education program can help us do things
that people in the field and people in teacher education
have known for years that we need to do. For example, one
of the things that we are very excited about is the
ability of teacher technology to better connect us with
schools. We are experimenting with a number of low-cost,
assistant-education capabilities that involve two-way
audio and video to help us connect with schools and make
direct connections for our methods and foundations
classes. This is one way that we are using technology to
do something that we have always wanted to do in teacher
education.
We are also extremely interested
in using technology to create a model, learner-centered,
authentic environment for our students in teacher
education. We think that if they have learned in those
types of environments, they will be better able to
construct those environments for their own students. For
example, one of the things that we are doing is we have a
collaborative project with our College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences with the Meteorology Department. They are
teaching a beginning course for our teacher education
students where the students use the web. In order to
learn meteorology, these students predict the weather in
different places on different days and then get authentic
feedback on how well they did with their predictions.
What we are hoping is that students will learn
meteorology in this authentic kind of environment. In
addition, our real goal is that, when they are teaching,
they will be models of how to use technology to create
these kinds of environments for their own students.
Another piece of it in terms of
teacher education is that technology is a way to attract
some of our brightest and best. We have a very active
technology component in our teacher education program.
Some of the leaders in that program are our undergraduate
students who, as many of us know, tend to have a better
knowledge and capability with technology than the older
generation. I see that as something to celebrate and take
advantage of, not something to demote. In our case, many
of our undergraduate teacher education students are
constructing interesting computer-related environments
working with in-service teachers, so all of our
pre-service teachers come into the environment as leaders
in this particular area and they learn a tremendous
amount from in-service teachers.
In terms of rationale, it seems
to be very clear that this is an area in which colleges
of education need to be involved. In terms of history,
that involvement has not been very impressive. I imagine
a lot of you have read the reports about colleges of
education, and in general the conclusion is that colleges
of education need to be working to integrate technology
in meaningful kinds of ways throughout the curriculum,
and they are not there yet.
In many cases, K-12 schools are
ahead of colleges of education in terms of the kinds of
technology applications and teacher training that we see;
however, that is not always the case. One of the things
that I am especially interested in is that we set up
collaborative environments so that K-12 institutions and
colleges of education are working together on this issue.
My experience up to this point is that there is a
tendency for a lot of blaming to go on in this particular
area, perhaps in other areas as well. Teacher education
institutions may say, “We are doing a great job of
preparing our students in the area of technology,”
and they are doing interesting things like authentic
learning and problem solving. However, when the students
get into the schools, there may not even be an Internet
connection and the students can get somewhat
disillusioned. The reverse of that blame is from the K-12
schools who say, “We are really working to get this
to happen in the K-12 schools, and the colleges of
education just are not keeping up with producing the
kinds of students we need to lead in this area.”
If you want to get into blaming,
I think probably both points of view have some kind of
accuracy, but this is a totally useless way to look at
the issue. We are going to be able to do more for student
learning if we set up collaborations between colleges of
education and pre–K-12 schools so that we can learn
together and share expertise. Basically, what we are
doing is addressing the issue together.
We have attempted to do that at
Iowa State in our teacher education program. I would like
to highlight some of the major features of what we are
doing at this institution in technology and teacher
education and give you a bit of context. We are a very
large teacher education program with about 1,000
undergraduate elementary education students and 500
students who are preparing to be secondary education
teachers.
We began our work intensely in
about l99l and, at that time, the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction made a strong commitment to
making technology integration one of the basic goals of
the Teacher Education Program. That was relatively early,
as many of you know, in terms of what is happening in
technology and teacher education programs and it gave us
a bit of a head start. Like most places, we started
slowly. We began with just making the hardware available
for the faculty and then eased into the integration
piece. I think the “easing in” part is one of
the reasons we have been relatively successful. We have
never required faculty to do anything with respect to
technology, and I think that has been a positive part of
our program. I think that probably carries over into K-12
schools as well. Most of our faculty are now definitely
on board and doing interesting and innovative things with
technology in their teacher education classes. However,
the process has been slow and gradual. We still have a
few who are not doing much of anything, and that is okay.
I heard a doctor present at a
conference several months ago and she was talking about
the issue of what to do about the teachers who do not
want to become involved. What she said is, “I have
one piece of advice after my years of experience in this.
My advice is, `work with the living.'” That is
something I would carry around in the back of my head
and, in fact, we have ended up with almost total buy-in
from our faculty to this technology and teacher education
effort.
Probably the main reason for
that is a program that we call Tech Mentoring. It has
been going on in our department since l992. It is very
simple and very generalized with the K-12 schools. We use
our students to mentor our faculty in the area of
technology. These mentoring experiences, as the words
suggest, are one-on-one. The faculty sign up to have a
student mentor. We do it on a semester basis. The student
meets with the faculty member for one hour per week to
talk about issues of technology. Generally, at first, the
faculty determines the agenda. For most of our faculty,
the first agenda item is to learn PowerPoint because they
want to put their lecture notes on the computer. We are
all well aware that this is not really what we are
thinking about in terms of the many uses of technology to
create student-centered environments. However, it is okay
with us because we see it as a starting point.
As the semester progresses, in
most cases, the faculty learn more about compelling,
authentic uses of technology and begin working with
simulations and different kinds of tools. If I had to
cite one piece of our program that was the most
influential in terms of making the difference, it would
be the Tech Mentoring. In the year 2000, we are still
doing the Tech Mentoring and have some faculty who will
very cheerfully tell you that they have had a Tech Mentor
for seven semesters in a row. That's just fine because
they are growing and changing and learning. In addition,
our students very much enjoy working with the faculty.
This semester, for the first
time, we are using the same model with our K-12 partners.
We are using our pre-service teachers as technology
mentors for many of the teachers who are involved in our
K-12 partnership. This is not to say that these new
teachers know everything there is to know about teaching,
but that they bring in expertise in technology that they
can share. In these relationships, they learn a good deal
from the classroom teachers.
The second most influential
piece, in terms of our programs, is our emphasis on
technology field experiences for our students. If they
only see technology in teacher education classes —
we've done some interesting research on this — it is
not a total waste of time, but close. They need to have
experiences out in the field with teachers who are using
interesting and student-learning related uses of
technology. We have worked very hard to set up
collaborative relationships so that we are working with
teachers in the schools and they are working with us. We
let them come in and teach our classes, sharing their
ideas about what they are doing with technology. We also
use video a good deal so that our students are able to
see what this looks like in K-12 schools.
One of the things I think we
have to keep in mind is that most of us teach the way we
are taught. Although we might have models in our head of
good reading or mathematics instruction, your students
leaving in the year 2000 also have models of using
technology, uses that have improved their own learning.
These collaborations are extremely important in terms of
making those models available.
Another important piece of our
program is integration with the Colleges of Engineering
and Liberal Arts and Sciences. We've talked a little bit
about the meteorology course. Another thing that we have
going on in the program is we offer a minor in
educational computing. Our goal there is to give students
the background to take almost immediate leadership roles
in the use of technology in K-12 schools. These students
take about 21 credits of courses in techniques in
educational computing. In addition, they take a
psychology course and a computer science course to
develop that expertise.
The last thing I will mention is
that we have developed a Tech Club. These are pre-service
teachers who are especially interested in technology.
Their major focus is the relationship with the K-12
schools. One of their regular annual projects is to adopt
a school and work with the faculty and the students in
that school in the area of technology.
We have a number of different
things going on, and these have developed over a ten-year
period. I think the most important thing that we have
learned and the most important statement I can make about
this is that it is absolutely critical that these
technology and teacher education programs grow up in
collaboration with K-12 schools. The models come from the
K-12 schools. There are things that the college of
education can help with in terms of the K-12 schools, but
it has to be a very close collaboration. The beauty of it
is that technology helps us develop closer collaborations
with the K-12 schools because of our new capabilities
with two-way audio and video, not to mention e-mail and
the web kinds of things that we are doing.
Our teacher education program in
the year 2000 is much stronger than it was in l99l. It is
not totally because of technology, but technology has
provided us with the tools to do the things in teacher
education that we simply could not do in the past.
Louise Meyer: I
would like to thank each of you for really excellent
presentations. If there are people that would like to
make a comment or a question, just please say your name,
title, and affiliation.
Bill Conrad
(Illinois): This is Bill Conrad with the Illinois State
Board of Education. Barbara, did you get a chance to talk
about your MDK-12 site? It is a very nice teacher portal.
We've been working with the UAQA on developing an
Illinois version of the MDK12.org. I would just like to
thank you for all the hard work and effort that you put
into making that a very great site for teachers and
administrators to use.
Barbara Reeves:
That is great. That is a great testimony to it. I will
explain briefly what it is. It is basically a site that
has the student performance data from our state
assessments. That's at the heart of it, but it is a
larger site than that. Schools can go in, access their
scores, and compare themselves to other schools that have
the same demographics.
Bill Conrad
(Illinois): What is the address?
Barbara Reeves:
It is www.mdk12.org. There's a lot of information about the
school improvement process, instructional resources, and
wonderful sections on teachers giving teachers advice
about how students can be better prepared for the state
assessments, which are pretty rigorous.
Bill Conrad
(Illinois): One of the components that we are really
intrigued with again is this whole performance assessment
in rubrics component where teachers can actually take
student work and apply the rubric to it and see what they
get. Maryland also has experts who have looked at the
same piece of work and applied the rubric. It is a nice
way for schools to get some reliability as it relates to
using rubrics for assessing student work aligned to the
Maryland standards. I think it is helpful to look at both
kinds of tools.
We are also working with SRI. I
do not know if people are familiar with the PALS site,
but it is a National Science Foundation-funded site that
aligns the national science standards with a valid and
reliable performance assessment. The address is pals.sri.com. Again, this site provides teacher
administration information, student or teacher
directions, and research that has been used to make sure
that these assessments are right, reliable, and valid.
What is neat is they also provide sample student work at
the different performance levels. We also want to be able
to utilize that site as a template for aligning our
standards.
I appreciate Maryland's lead in
providing online tools that teachers and administrators
can use for a more data-driven, question-driven approach
to improving student achievements. I think that there are
some great things on the horizon.
A consultant with SRI came out
to Illinois last week and has been working with our staff
in aligning our standards with their performance
standards. They have a new way of doing that by aligning
our standards with the national standards. We
automatically have a linkage to all of the performance
assessments that exist on their site. What we want to do
is to take this tool and adapt it to maps and language
art. We see that as a really powerful tool for teachers
and administrators.
Louise Meyer:
Thank you for sharing. Anyone else with a comment or a
question?
Pam Syntemire
(Iowa): This is Pam Syntemire calling from Iowa. The
question that I have is for the folks in Maryland and it
has to do with the three-week summer institute. Do they
get a good cross-section of not only the
“pioneers” in technology, but also heavily
recruit the “middle of the road” people?
Barbara Reeves:
Yes. We have an application process and ask questions to
try to screen for those kinds of things. The ones that we
do not really accept are those that are still novices in
using computers because there is just no way that they
are going to be taught how to use a computer or basic
software. We do make sure that they have at least a
minimal level of technology competency, but we also try
to signal on that application that this is not for folks
interested in computer networking and other technical
aspects such as installing software. This professional
development is designed for those teachers who have a
keen interest on really making sure that they are using
technology effectively in their classroom.
We had a wonderful cross-section
last year. Last summer was the first summer institute,
and we had 120 participants. We had 700 applicants for
120 positions. We had a K-16 because we do target higher
education instructors as well. We had almost every
subject area represented with a balance between
elementary and secondary. It was a wonderful
cross-section and the “people networking” with
other teachers around the state is what these teachers
all said was the best part. Every district except one
from our state was represented.
It is definitely not just those
that are at the advanced level, although they are
recruited. We also have those that really could benefit
most from just learning how to teach well beyond the
technology.
There is a web site that you can
access at cte.jhu.edu/techacademy that tells more about the tech academy
and some of the teacher products that were produced last
summer. There are some nice products that came out of
that institute.
Pam Syntemire
(Iowa): I've got a question regarding when teachers get
beyond the “How do I turn on the machine and load
the software, et cetera?” phase and really want to
see some models specifically in their content area. We
hear this especially from secondary people: “Don't
just show me general applications. I want to see
something in chemistry or physics or whatever the content
where I am.” How did you address that in the
institute?
Barbara Reeves:
Because it was three weeks and we had such a
cross-section, we had smaller sessions that were either
grade level specific or content area specific. That kind
of discussion does not happen a lot at the larger
institute. One of the things that we are doing this
summer is what we are calling satellite programs.
Throughout the state, there are going to be regional
“mini versions” of the tech academy where they
will be able to target a particular content area or
learning level using the core curriculum, but configuring
it specifically for that content area or learning level.
You are right. This does become an issue, so we do have
some elective, smaller sessions.
Pam Syntemire
(Iowa): One final question. How is this being funded?
Barbara Reeves:
Half of the summer institute is funded through a federal
innovation grant. The other half is through state
funding. The satellite programs this summer are being
totally funded through some additional state funding.
Pam Syntemire
(Iowa): Do you have any idea how much money the state has
put in for the project?
Barbara Reeves:
Well, last summer was the first summer and that was
approximately $500,000 for 120 participants, for three
weeks, partially residential. If they had to travel
farther than fifty miles, they could stay at Towson
University. That figure included everything, including a
lot of supplies and materials, and each participant was
given a $1,200 stipend. In addition, they are given MSDE
credit, and are eligible for graduate credit through
Towson or Hopkins.
We are doing 20 satellite
programs and just got the proposals for those, and each
one is funded for $80,000 — about $1.6 million for
this summer in addition to the $500,000 for what we call
the main academy.
Louise Meyer: I
would like to thank Barbara, Joy, and Dr. Thompson for
offering their time today. If you have any questions,
please contact me at louisem@ccsso.org
and I will do my best to
help you find an answer. Again, we thank our participants
for making this a very informative and lively session.
|
![NTN [logo]](../../images/ntnThL.gif)
![NTA [logo link]](../../images/nta.gif){kind=small}
